Friday, July 11, 2014

The One-Egg Dozen

From the April 2011 E-Block.**In recent weeks I had a preview of what it would
be like to deal with those who adhere to the “hyperpreterist” heresy –
the idea that the resurrection of all men occurred in 70 AD along with
the parousia. In due time I expect to compose a Building Blocks book on
eschatology, and a fuller treatment of this heresy will be part of the
package. But for now, here is a look at some of the ideas espoused by
hyperpreterists. (I will not be naming the sources of these arguments,
as they are persons who are desirous of just that sort of attention.) I
will begin by noting the orthodox view in each section.

Orthodox: We are currently in the millennium, in which the
“thousand” years represent a very long time of unspecified length
(hence the round number).

Heresy: The millennium took place between 30-70 AD.

Yes, you might want to read that again. The heretical view is
that we should compress that “1000” into a bare 40. The matter here is
not that the 1000 is not a literal number – all agree that numbers,
especially round numbers, in the Bible can be interpreted to mean
something more vague – but in such cases, as with the orthodox view, it
has to do with the ability to precisely recount large numbers.

Thus for example, Rev. 9:16 literally refers to “two hundred
thousand thousand” – we render this in terms of 200 million, but there
was no word for “million” available. In the same way, large and precise
numbers posed a certain difficulty in terms of expression.

In contrast, compression of that 1000 down to 40 (!) has no
linguistic basis whatsoever. “Forty” is perfectly able to be expressed
in Biblical Greek (eg, Acts 1:3, 7:23, etc). There is simply no reason
from that perspective to crush 1000 down to 40.

So why would a hyperpreterist do this? The argument goes that
conditions described as occurring in the millennium are seen in the NT
as happening between 30-70 AD. To argue this, however, requires some
exceptionally creative exegetical tap-dancing. Let’s look at the
arguments, which will hereafter be in italics.

The living were resurrected, awaiting the consummation of the
resurrection at the last hour (John 5:24-28; 6:44). Notice Jesus’ “the
hour is coming and now is” and “the hour is coming.” John later wrote:
“It is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). The resurrection scenario of
Revelation is not different from John 5. The fact that 1 John says the
consummative last hour was upon them proves that the end of the
millennium was near.

The error here is the same made by Mormons who try to force John
5:24-5 to refer to the evangelizing of the dead. There are two “hour is
coming” references. One in 5:25 refers to the enlivening of those
spiritually dead. The other, in 5:29, refers to an entirely different
hour, that of the final resurrection; there is no justification for
compressing the two “hours” into one.

In the same way, there is no justification for identifying the
“hour” on 1 John 2:18 with either of these “hours”. The word used, hora,
can connote a specified length of time like our hour, but it also
refers to a known, definite time period (cf. Matt. 10:19, 24:36).
Collapsing down all “hours” as being the same is linguistic
simple-mindedness. In 1 John 2:18, the proper question to ask is, “the
last hour of what”? Then the question is whether that “hour” is the same as either of those in John 5.

Of course, the question can then become whether what is described
in John 5:28-9 happened in the first century, and that point – which
has to do with what “resurrection” constitutes – we reserve for another
article in this series.

The next several items apparently ought to go together, but we will intersperse as needed:

The martyrs sat on thrones and were given authority to judge
(Revelation 20:4). The martyrs were told that they would only have to
wait a little while before their full victory was achieved, but first,
their living brethren had to suffer to fill the measure of suffering
(Revelation 6:9-11).

The living and the dead had been enthroned with Christ “in the heavenlies” (Ephesians 2:1-6).

This last point requires a correction. It is being taken to refer
to a literal enthroning of the living and the dead, but that is not
what is being described here. Rather, this is a statement of our
collective identity in the body of Christ, and is an expression of the
collectivist (group-thinking) of the social world of the NT, in which
Christ represents us. It is an obvious mistake that comes of reading the
text in modern, individualist terms, and this text no more means there
are literally people judging with Christ at this time than “I have been
crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20) means that Paul literally hung on a
cross with Jesus in 30 AD.

It is in this way also that believers could in a sense be said to
“reign” with Christ – by the mode of collective identification. Thus it
could be said that believers reigned by proxy, as it were, but not that
they literally and effectively ruled and administered.

In contrast, what is seen in Revelation reflects a literal
administration. Conceivably, one could argue (here and for other
citations below) that Revelation here also symbolizes administration by
proxy. That is not likely, since it is a select group, not the body of
Christ, said to judge. However, even if this were the case, all it would
tell us is that rule of believers by Christ’s proxy was not exclusively
a characteristic of the millennial period – and indeed, based on the
collectivist mindset, it could not be anyway.

The living had been given the authority to judge (Matthew
19:28; 1 Corinthians 6; 2 Corinthians 2:15-16). In Matthew 19:28 Jesus
told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel. This judgment would take place through the
message they preached (Matthew 16:19; cf. 2 Corinthians 2:15f).

Here again events have been illicitly collapsed into one. The
“judgers” of Matthew 19 are the twelve. The “judgers” of the Cor.
passages are the whole body of Christ. The “judgers” of Rev. 20 are
martyrs for the faith. We have three different (but to some extent,
slightly overlapping) groups in view. Although, there is some attempt to
collapse these down:

The living saints had to experience the suffering already experienced by the martyrs.

The living would only have to suffer for a little while (Revelation 6:9-11; 1 Peter 1:4f).

Nevertheless, a full collapsing down is not possible here. Very
few Christians became martyrs, and the twelve is not the whole body of
Christ. Furthermore, there will certainly be ample opportunity for
multiple groups to effect various types of judgments – plenty to keep
all three groups occupied. There is no reason to collapse all these
events into one.

Satan was bound for the millennium. Here too we find common ground with the ministry of Jesus and the forty years.

When Jesus cast a demon out of a man, the disciples
marveled. Jesus’ said that this was not possible unless the strong man
was being bound (Matthew 12:29). As he sent his disciples out on the
“limited commission” they returned incredulous at their success. Jesus
told them: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18;
cf. Revelation 12).

This is a rather curious understanding of what it means to be
“bound”. A single, localized instance of a demon (not even Satan) being
cast out of a man is not a binding of Satan. Nor is falling from heaven
being “bound”. The word used in Revelation connotes such things as John
the Baptist being put in prison and the colt being tied to its place
before Jesus’ disciples retrieve it. In contrast, Peter (1 Peter 5:8)
later in the NT period (during the supposed millennium!) has
Satan prowling around like a lion, and throughout the NT Satan is
suspected of a certain amount of activity as well; nothing so trivial as
ruining BBQs a la Joyce Meyer, but tempting, acting as an agent of
destruction, and so on. Later on, the hyperpreterist amazingly cites 1
Peter 5:8 as evidence of the millennium ending; we will get to that
shortly.

Appeal is also made thusly:
We have the binding of the enemy of God: “You know what is restraining
him...” “The one who now restrains him will do so until he is taken out
of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:5-7); the binding of Satan (Revelation
20:1-4).

Unfortunately, there is no possibility of identifying the “man of
sin” (2 Thess. 2:3) with Satan, and it is he, not Satan, who was being
restrained. Who this “man of sin” is can be debated; I am inclined to
identify him with the Roman Emperor Vespasian at present. However, there
remains no way Satan could be in view, especially in light of all the
other references to his activity in the NT.

Paul said the last enemy, death, would be put down at Christ’s
parousia (1 Corinthians 15:19-25). John said death would be destroyed
at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:10f).
Therefore, Christ’s parousia would be at the end of the millennium:
Jesus said “Behold, I come quickly!” Thus, the end of the millennium was
near when John wrote.

Here the error is one we have noted in our article on Paul (link below) and eschatology. It assumes that parousia refers exclusively to a single event. In reality it would have no such exclusive connotations.

One way of determining whether the forty year period could
have been the millennium is to examine what was to happen at the end of
the millennium, and to compare that with the language of imminence found
in the NT. If the events that Revelation posits at the end of the
millennium were coming soon in the rest of the NT, this constitutes
prima facie evidence that the end of the millennium was near.

But 1 Peter was written before the end of the 40 year period – the alleged “millennium”. Revelation has Satan released after
that period is over. There is no “coming soon” in Peter’s words – Satan
is seeking victims NOW, in his present. There is no “language of
imminence” or any qualification that fits such a thing (e.g., Peter not
knowing if it would occur in or past his lifetime).

2.) War with the saints – 1 Peter 1:4f – The Saints had to suffer a little while (cf. Revelation 12:10).

Persecution, however, continues even to this day, past the
alleged millennium, though mostly in other places in the world than the
West. Being persecuted is not an exclusive characteristic of any period.

3.) Destruction of Satan – Romans 16:20 – “The God of peace
shall crush Satan under your feet shortly.” Simply stated: The
destruction of Satan would be at the end of the millennium. But, the
destruction of Satan was near when Paul wrote Romans.
Therefore, the end of the millennium was near when Paul wrote Romans.

This too reflects a rather idiosyncratic definition. As I say in the article linked below:

It is far from clear that Paul here necessarily refers to an
eschatological condition. God could "bruise Satan" in any number of ways
in the temporal life of the believer. However, the phrase used for
"shortly" (en tachei) could also have two meanings: either shortly in
time or speedily, with dispatch.
Witherington notes that the phrase is adverbial and should
indicate manner. [31] The verse tells us how, not when, Satan will be
crushed. There is, in any event, no contextual reference to the parousia
or any event associated with Christ's return or advent; and even if
not, preterism holds that Satan was bound around 70 AD, so that it could
be argued that this prediction was fulfilled.

Either way, “destruction” is far too strong a word to use for what is described here.

4.) The resurrection– (i.e. “the rest of the dead,” who came
to life after the 1000 years, 20:7-12) – Christ was “ready (hetoimos) to
judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5).

5.) Opening of the books / judgment – “There are some
standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man
coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28).

It is hard to see what point is being reached for here. That
Christ is “ready” to judge people in the afterlife does not mean they
are resurrected, or will be any time soon. Nor does Matthew 16 say
anything about the books of judgment being opened.

This, however, has all of what is predicted in Revelation as a
referent, which by the preterist view includes events of the first
century – indeed, by the orthodox view, all but a few lines occurred in
the first century, and those lines are cordoned off with a promise of a
wait of a “thousand years” – which we are still waiting to be explained
as merely 40 years by the hyper-preterist.

A point follows arguing for the end of the millennium as
fulfilling Israel’s Feast of Tabernacles, in which it is roundaboutly
added:

It is commonly argued that the “ceremonial aspects” of Torah
ended at the cross, and that Israel ceased to be God’s covenant people
at the cross, while OT prophecy remained (to AD 70) or remains valid
(futurism). However, nothing was more “ceremonial” or prophetic, than
Israel’s covenantal feast days! The fact that Revelation 20-21 depicts
the fulfillment of Israel’s last three feast days at the end of the
millennium proves that the “ceremonial” aspects of Torah remained valid
when John wrote.

Not at all; this is a non sequitur. Even if we accept the notion
that events at the end of the millennium somehow “fulfill” the Feast of
Tabernacles – a rather vague claim that is akin to claims that Jesus
“imitated” certain pagan deities in that he, like they, offered
“salvation” – such a fulfillment would not require a present and
continuing observation of that Feast by humans. This is simply a
desperate stretch. God is hardly dependent on continuing human
observation of holidays for fulfillments of this sort to occur. Nor
would it be required for humans to recognize such a connection, since
this writer has done so (however correctly – or not) 2000+ years after
the fact.

That said, it is far better to see the fulfillment of the Feast
of Tabernacles in terms of the Holy Spirit residing within individual
believers – which occurred c. 30 AD.

One last non sequitur is forced in, where it is said that Daniel
12 predicted the final resurrection of all men. We will deal with more
detailed claims in that regard in another entry in this series. In the
end, no success was had at compressing 1000 years into 40 – and it is
akin to offering a single egg and claiming to offer a dozen.